The Effects of Crack

by Professor Michael Gazzaniga

The following is an excerpt form "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do", by
Peter McWilliams. It is a discussion between William F. Buckley, Jr. And Professor
Gazzaniga (the Andrew W. Thompson Jr. Professor of Psychiatry [Neuroscience] at Dartmouth
Medical School) which was originally published in the February 5, 1990, issue of the
National Review.

Buckley: It is said that the drug crack is substantively different from its
parent drug, cocaine, in that it is, to use the term of Professor van den Haag,
"crimogenic." In other words a certain (unspecified) percentage of those who
take crack are prompted to--well, to go out and commit mayhem of some kind. Is that
correct?

Gazzaniga: No, not in the way you put it. What you are asking is: Is there
something about how crack acts on the brain that makes people who take it likelier to
commit crime? Let's begin by making it clear what crack is. It is simply cocaine that has
been mixed with baking soda, water, and then boiled. What this procedure does is to permit
cocaine to be smoked. Now any drug ingested in that way-- i.e., absorbed by the
lungs--goes more efficiently to the brain, and the result is a quicker, more intense
experience. That is what crack gives the consumer. But its impact on the brain is the same
as with plain cocaine and, as a matter of fact, amphetamines. No one has ever maintained
that these drugs are "crimogenic.' The only study I know about that inquires into the
question of crack breeding crime reports that most homicides involving crack were the
result NOT of the use of crack, but of dealer disputes. Crack did not induce users to
commit crimes. Do some crack users commit crimes? Of course. After all, involvement in
proscribed drug traffic is dangerous. Moreover, people who commit crimes tend to use drugs
at a high rate, though which drug they prefer varies from one year to the next.

Buckley: You are telling us that an increase in the use of crack would not mean
an increase in crime?

Gazzaniga: I am saying that what increase there would be in crime would not be
simply the result of the pharmacology of that drug. Look, let's say there are 200,000
users/abusers of crack in New York City--a number that reflects one of the current
estimates. If so, and if the drug produced violent tendencies in all crack users, the
health-care system would have to come to a screeching halt. It hasn't. In fact, in 1988
the hospitals in New York City (the crack capital of the world) averaged only seven
crack-related admissions, city-wide, a day. The perception of crack-based misbehavior is
exaggerated because it is the cases that show up in the emergency rooms that receive
public notice, and the whole picture begins to look very bleak. All of this is to say:
when considering any aspect of the drug problem, keep in mind the matter of selection of
evidence. It is prudent to recall that, in the past, dangerous and criminal behavior has
been said to have been generated by other drugs, for instance marijuana (you remember
"Reefer Madness"?). And bear it in mind that since cocaine is available
everywhere, so is crack available everywhere, since the means of converting the one into
the other are easy, and easily learned. It is important to note that only a small
percentage of cocaine users actually convert their stuff to crack. Roughly one in six.

Buckley: Then would it follow that even if there were an increase in the use of
crack, the legalization of it would actually result in a decrease in crime?

Gazzaniga: That is correct.

Buckley: Isn't crack a drug whose addictive power exceeds that of many other
drugs? If that is the case, one assumes that people who opt to take crack do so because it
yields the faster and more exhilarating satisfactions to which you make reference.

Gazzaniga: That is certainly the current understanding, but there are no solid
data on the question. Current observations are confounded by certain economic variables.
Crack is cheap-

Buckley: Why? If cocaine is expensive, how can crack be cheap?

Gazzaniga: Cocaine costs $1,000 per ounce if bought in quantity. Once ounce can
produce one thousand vials of crack, each of which sells for $5. The drug abuser is able
to experience more drug episodes. Crack being cheap, the next high can come a lot more
quickly and since there is a down to every up, or high, the cycle can become intense. So
yes, crack is addictive. So is cocaine. So are amphetamines. The special punch of crack,
as the result of going quickly via the lungs to the brain, may prompt some abusers to want
more. By the way, it is the public knowledge that crack acts in this way that, as several
studies document, causes most regular cocaine users to be cautious about crack. The
casual- to-moderate user very clearly wants to stay in that category. So, all you can say
is that there is a *perception*, widely shared, that crack is more addictive. Whether it
is, isn't really known. One thing we do know is that crack does not begin to approach
tobacco as a nationwide health hazard. For every crack-related death, there are
three-hundred tobacco-related deaths. Another example of hyperbole is the recent claim
that there were 375,000 "crack babies" born last year; how could that possibly
be, when the government (the National Institutes on Drug Abuse) informs us that there were
only 500,000 crack "users" last year? Exaggeration and misinformation run
rampant on this subject.

Buckley: Well, if crack were legally available alongside cocaine and, say,
marijuana, what would be the reason for a consumer to take crack?

Gazzaniga: You need to keep your drug classifications straight. if your goal
were, pure and simple, to get high, you might try crack or cocaine, or some amphetamine.
You wouldn't go for marijuana, which is a mild hallucinogen and tranquilizer. So, if you
wanted to be up and you didn't have much time, you might go to crack. But then if it were
absolutely established that there was a higher addiction rate with crack, legalization
could, paradoxically, diminish its use. This is so because if cocaine were reduced to the
same price as crack, the abuser, acknowledging the higher rate of addiction, might forgo
the more intensive high of crack, opting for the slower high of cocaine. Crack was
introduced years ago as offering an alluring new psychoactive experience. But its special
hold on the ghetto is the result of its price. Remember that--on another front--we know
that 120- proof alcohol doesn't sell as readily as 86 proof, not by a long shot, even
though the higher the proof, the faster the psychological effect that alcohol users are
seeking.